Oxford University’s Centre for the Environment and UCL’s Department of Anthropology: Joint workshop on conservation and sustainable livelihoods

24th February 2009, Oxford University Centre for the Environment

Summary: This half-day workshop asks what commonalities are emerging from research exploring the social and livelihood impacts of conservation initiatives. In turn, it looks to contribute to debate surrounding the support and creation of sustainable livelihoods through conservation initiatives.

Theme: The conservation-poverty debate continues unabated QUOTE "(Roe, 2008)" (for a review see Roe, 2008). Arising early in the 70’s, the discussion surrounding the social and livelihood impacts of protected areas and associated conservation initiatives is, to date, un-resolved. With over 11% of the terrestrial land surface protected, conservation efforts are increasingly focusing on efforts in the matrix between protected areas, expanding the influence of environmental conservation regulations beyond protected area boundaries. The social impacts of these issues are not only important for moral reasons, but practically as conservationists increasingly engage in collaborations with communities.
A wide variety of theoretical and methodological approaches have been mobilized by researchers interested in studying the links between conservation and livelihoods. These include, among others; studies in the field of political ecology, livelihood studies involving household surveys, anthropological studies, and more recently, empirically-based global analyses using infant mortality as a proxy for poverty QUOTE "(Redford, Levy, Sanderson, & De Sherbinin, 2008)" (Redford et al. 2008). Inherent to the analysis of conservation’s social impacts is the geographical variation between sites where biodiversity conservation activities occur - a plethora of not only ecological spaces, but of varying social, political and economic contexts. Conservation in itself- a diversity of projects and processes - is a multifaceted concept, as is poverty QUOTE "(Walpole & Wilder, 2008)" (Walpole & Wilder, 2008). This leads to complex and contrasting linkages between these sites and the belief that each site must be taken case by case, and that generalities may not exist QUOTE "(Fisher, Maginnis, Jackson, Barrow, & Jeanrenaud, 2005)" (Fisher et al. 2005).
What then, from among this metaphorical haystack, are the common findings of social scientists? Can any cross-site generalities be made? For example –
Do conservation initiatives always contribute to food security and reduce household vulnerability by ensuring sustainable resource use?
Do households who are more reliant on natural resources always support more of the costs of conservation regulations, and if so can conservation therefore entrench poverty?
What other social impacts, along the axes of gender, ethnicity, and age (among others), are common to all these projects?
Are existing social and power relations always re-enforced?
Is it regulations regarding access to resources or the actual processes by which the regulations are implemented that are most important in determining social outcomes?
Finally, if commonalities do exist, how can this contribute to the debate on how conservation can support livelihoods? Through a series of presentations – both by keynote academics and current OUCE and UCL PhD students – this workshop will endeavor to present current research on conservation-livelihood linkages, discuss how we can benefit from the variety of approaches which exist, and comment on any commonalities emerging from within this research field.



Timetable:
14:00-14:10 Welcome and introduction to workshop theme
14:10-16:00 Session 1: Title to be confirmed
Keynote Speaker 1 (30 minutes)
Keynote Speaker 2 (30 minutes)
Questions and discussion
16:00-16:15     Coffee break (OUCE Coffee Room)
16:15-17:40     Session 2: Title to be confirmed
Keynote Speaker 3 (30 minutes)
PhD Student Speaker 1 (15 minutes)
PhD Student Speaker 2 (15 minutes)
PhD Student Speaker 3 (15 minutes)
Questions and discussion
17:40-18:00     Wrap-up Session: Discuss key issues generated from the sessions and conclusion
Discussion chaired by Professor Katherine Homewood
 


Selected references

Fisher, R. J., Maginnis, S., Jackson, W. J., Barrow, E., & Jeanrenaud, S. (2005). Poverty and Conservation. Landscapes, People and Power. Cambridge, UK: IUCN.
Redford, K. H., Levy, M. A., Sanderson, E. W., & De Sherbinin, A. (2008). What is the role for conservation organisations in poverty alleviation in the world's wild places? Oryx, 42( 4), 512-528.
Roe, D. (2008). The origins and evolution of the conservation-poverty debate: a review of key literature, events and policy processes. Oryx, 42(4), 491-503.
Walpole, M., & Wilder, L. (2008). Disentangling the links between conservation and poverty reduction in practice. Oryx, 42(4), 539-547.